Boards›[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

Here's my "Narrative" paper I was assigned to write..

Theorchero··6 votes·5,141 views

Tldr, I was assigned to write a "Narrative" about the Emma Watson speech she gave at the UN. My teacher is very obviously a feminist. Here's my essay I wrote:

(Starting title removed) Writing Narrative, “He for SHE” movement

Let me start this off by first saying a disclaimer: This is not going to be a popular opinion. The reader might not agree with me. However, my opinions are based in fact, unlike the common feminist movement.

To preface, I’m not a racist, or sexist, I believe in equal rights for everyone, in hard work and sensible ethics that everyone should follow to the best of their ability. Many feminists would argue that that alone makes me a feminist, and I say “No.” The reason being, is that feminism isn’t about equality at all, not really. Let’s break down what the word means. The prefix “Fem” most closely means Female, or Feminine. The suffix “Ism” is for “nouns of action, state, condition, and doctrine”, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. Now, I am no English major, but that sounds an awful lot like the word actually means the doctrine of women.

I will never support feminism. I will support an actual equal rights movement, but that isn’t feminism. Women are privileged in our society. “But women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes!”

Actually, no they don’t. According to both The Daily Beast , and CBS News , the pay gap is actually because of different choices men and women take. Men tend to work more hours, dirtier, more dangerous jobs, and usually take less time off of work due to children. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal , “unmarried women who have never had a child earn MORE than unmarried men.”

Also, an opinion posted on a public forum under the handle of “Drukyul ” mentioned this movement as well:

“[Off the top of my head I know Emma Watson recently spoke in the UN, trying to find a way to repair the reputation of feminism and show it isn't just about making women superior or protecting women, but about equality.]

...for a UN initiative called HEforSHE, that sums up with "I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls." It's traditionalist men protecting women, dressed up as feminism, AGAIN. It's really, really, really getting old.”

I can’t agree more. Women are privileged in today’s society. Men have no reproductive rights , receive longer jail sentences , are able to be drafted, and biased against in custody cases . This doesn’t even include social disadvantages, such as being ignored as victims of domestic abuse.

[Sources below. Forums doesn't like references, but you can pretty much figure out what each references in the paper]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192 http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=4914045&page=4 http://judgybitch.com/tag/do-men-have-any-reproductive-rights/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/are-custody-decisions-bia_b_870709.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0MW6ON484 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

TLDR

Wrote a paper against feminism for my english teacher who has tried to manipulate the class to be about women's rights.

The format looks pretty ugly, but it looks a lot better in Word.

34 Comments

Theorchero2 votes

bump

Keenano2 votes

There are many people who identify as feminists, yet have differing, even opposing, ideas. Finding the common interests of 'feminists' would be as difficult as finding the common interests of 'liberals', and you'd do well to acknowledge this. Some self-identified feminists are pushing for a very sexist movement. Other self-identified feminists are pushing for exactly what you said they'd think you a feminist for: "equal rights for everyone, in hard work and sensible ethics that everyone should follow to the best of their ability."

"I believe in equal rights for everyone, in hard work and sensible ethics that everyone should follow to the best of their ability. Many feminists would argue that that alone makes me a feminist, and I say “No.” The reason being, is that feminism isn’t about equality at all, not really."

I can't wait to see the backbone of this statement. Whatever it is, I doubt it'd be something as horrible as misconstruing language with a science-

"Let’s break down what the word means. The prefix “Fem” most closely means Female, or Feminine. The suffix “Ism” is for “nouns of action, state, condition, and doctrine”, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. Now, I am no English major, but that sounds an awful lot like the word actually means the doctrine of women."

...Look, I don't want you to think I'm being condescending and not constructive here, but this is fallacious reasoning. It's not logically sound to deduce that because the semantics of a sub-groups title can infer X, that sup-group inherently supports X.

You'd do better to rebuke specific arguments from the... less intelligent 'feminists.' The ones that have all sorts of dialect about rape and how men apparently do it to women more than we thought we did. You know, 'rape culture.' Write a paper on the bullshit of rape culture, and maybe also point out the inequalities (like you have) that men have in modern society.

Theorchero3 votes

"Let’s break down what the word means. The prefix “Fem” most closely means Female, or Feminine. The suffix “Ism” is for “nouns of action, state, condition, and doctrine”, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. Now, I am no English major, but that sounds an awful lot like the word actually means the doctrine of women."

...Look, I don't want you to think I'm being condescending and not constructive here, but this is fallacious reasoning. It's not logically sound to deduce that because the semantics of a sub-groups title can infer X, that sup-group inherently supports X.

That's perfectly fine. I appreciate the feedback.

Like I said, I'm not great when it comes to english. My main point being is that how does a word which actually means rights for females mean equality? I suppose I just need a better way to say this, instead.

Thanks for constructive criticism.

Keenano3 votes

"Let’s break down what the word means. The prefix “Fem” most closely means Female, or Feminine. The suffix “Ism” is for “nouns of action, state, condition, and doctrine”, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. Now, I am no English major, but that sounds an awful lot like the word actually means the doctrine of women."

...Look, I don't want you to think I'm being condescending and not constructive here, but this is fallacious reasoning. It's not logically sound to deduce that because the semantics of a sub-groups title can infer X, that sup-group inherently supports X.

That's perfectly fine. I appreciate the feedback.

Like I said, I'm not great when it comes to english. My main point being is that how does a word which actually means rights for females mean equality? I suppose I just need a better way to say this, instead.

Thanks for constructive criticism.

It doesn't. What I was conveying was that the semantics of whatever word a group commandeers for their identification is ultimately irrelevant to the groups actual intent.

Edit: Also, I'm not arguing that it's a smart decision to use 'feminism' as a flagship word, especially since as I pointed out, there are prettywell 2 different movements currently under the visage of 'feminism.' One is the extreme, filled with sexist bigots; the other is just all about general equal rights. The latter really should try to get the name 'equalists' going.

Jesus thy Lord2 votes

...Look, I don't want you to think I'm being condescending and not constructive here, but this is fallacious reasoning. It's not logically sound to deduce that because the semantics of a sub-groups title can infer X, that sup-group inherently supports X.

-Yeah because the KKK is totally NOT racist ! -Feminism is totally NOT misandric ! If someone truly seeks equality, they would be an egalitarian.

You'd do better to rebuke specific arguments from the... less intelligent 'feminists.' The ones that have all sorts of dialect about rape and how men apparently do it to women more than we thought we did. You know, 'rape culture.' Write a paper on the bullshit of rape culture, and maybe also point out the inequalities (like you have) that men have in modern society.

Those are not the "less intelligent feminists", those are the core group that forms the backbone of feminism. Things like Patriarchy Theory and Rape Culture are fundamental tenets of feminism. You know not what you say.

In any case, good job OP, the world needs less manginas joining the ranks of women and feminists that support misandry and female privilege.

Do I want women to be able to earn as much as me? Sure.

Women are already able to "earn as much as you". In fact, statistically speaking they earn between 5 to 10% more when controlling for factors.

Feather4261 votes

Please, tell me about "female privilege."

Neon Robot1 votes

[deleted]

Feather4261 votes

I read the article, but I don't necessarily agree with all that was said. You should be able to point out that somebody else has privilege and still be aware that they have the capacity for empathy. The post that I replied to originally stated "the world needs less manginas joining the ranks of women and feminists that support misandry and female privilege," effectively saying that anyone who identifies as both male and a feminist is somehow less of a man (less of a man meaning more of a woman and woman being used as a bad thing to be). By the way, IronStylus identifies as a feminist. This is privilege and why people don't always realize they have it.

Men are taught to not hit women but not vice versa. Women are less likely to be targeted by violent crime.

Men are taught not to hit women because they are weak and they will break them.

Studies show that women who hit men in public will likely receive either no response or support.

This is an example of why men need feminism. If women were taken as a serious threat, you can bet there would be a response.

A woman can produce children.

Being pregnant is not fun, giving birth is no picnic, and this is anatomy, not privilege.

A woman has drug based contraception which is often subsidized or paid for by the government. Women have chemical contraception.

I'm gonna go ahead and say I live in Canada where healthcare is free (Canadian privilege O.o). That being said, there are male drug-based contraceptives, but I don't think they are widely distributed. This is just the wiki on the subject.

Women can have children and support them via government and private initiatives even if they do not work.

To be fair, men can run off after getting a woman pregnant and leave her with no way to pay for kids. I don't think there are very many mothers out there who decide they want to have children and not work at all.

Women may vote without being drafted.

Don't know how that works in America, but that seems kind of silly. Also worth mentioning that there are women in the army, even though it hasn't been that long since they were allowed to be and they are heavily discouraged from it. Women also had to fight for the right to vote.

Women receive lighter sentences at all levels of criminal justice.

This would be an example if it were true (not saying it isn't, but I don't have any information on that subject).

Women are less at risk of death in the workplace.

Is this because of the jobs they occupy, or their treatment at their job?

Women have lower homeless rates.

You may want to think of a reason behind this.

Women have lower suicide rates.

Again, what is the reason? Is it because it is more accepted for a woman to find help when depressed, meaning that when a man becomes depressed he feels he cannot get help for fear of appearing womanly? (Again, woman seen in a negative context.)

There are more government programs to aid women. There are more private programs to aid women.

(These are really the same point.) Probably because it is more socially acceptable for women to ask for help. See above.

A man sabotaging a condom is a crime, a woman hiding the fact that she isn't on birth control is not.

I don't get that one. It should be fraud at the very least.

Women have free entry into the majority of nightclubs and bars.

The owners of nightclubs and bars want pretty women to attract more people (aka the guys) into their bar. They don't get free drinks unless someone buys them drinks. (Don't even try to argue that is privilege, that is some guy trying to get laid.)

Women will not be questioned if they play or show familiarity to children.

96% of sex offenders are male. Sorry, but females are gonna be less threatening to children.

Women have women only scholarships.

Women were not originally allowed in university and were discouraged from getting an education. Doesn't it make sense to encourage it now? Native people go to university for free, but that isn't a privilege because the Europeans came over and took their land and ruined their way of life.

A womans feelings will be considered in nearly every social environment.

Video games? (And yes, I get that now Riot is creating more interesting female characters, but one mention of boob-plate from a girl...)

Women contribute less and claim more retirement contributions due to longer lifespans.

This entire point is sexist. Why do we contribute less?

Women live longer.

Filed under anatomy, not privilege.

Womens health issues receive wide coverage in popular culture and media and receive more financial support.

That might be a point if it were true (not saying it isn't, but I don't have any information on that subject).

Women may be a stay at home parent as the norm.

Women are stereotyped as the stay at home mom and it isn't a good thing.

Women may opt out of parenthood via abortion, adoption, or safe havens.

So you think having control over one's own body is female privilege? That is a basic human right.

Women receive alimony at dramatically higher rates.

Probably because in general, they do not earn as much as men.

Women have women-centric movements and organizations that are taken seriously by the state and media. Women may have women only spaces without legal recourse. There are women only crisis centers in the event of a violent or sexual crime.

Not a privilege. They put in a lot of hard work to get equal rights. I would argue that feminism (while it means that everybody should be treated the same, it does have an emphasis on women) does not seem to be taken seriously. There have been enough "men only" spaces. If men are usually the perpetrators of violent or sexual crimes against women, does this not make sense?

Women may blame inappropriate behavior on hormones.

Men blame women's behaviour on hormones, I'm not sure what you want from us.

Women may claim there are no female privileges without question.

I did not personally say that, but there are not as many as you seem to think.

Women may continually highlight the existence of privilege of the opposite gender whether those discussed actually enjoy such privileges.

You say yourself that everyone has privilege. Most of the points here are not privilege either.

Women are consistently represented in a generally positive manner on television.

Are men not consistently represented in a positive manner? Or do you mean that the only roll a women may fill on TV is a sexy/smart/athletic/multitasking superhuman?

Women have quotas.

?

Women may sue for gender discrimination and be taken seriously.

Probably because gender discrimination against women has a long history, whereas against men, it is fairly recent. It's also a reason why men need feminism.

Women have all gendered sex crimes taken more seriously. Female pedophile crimes are treated as less severe and their victims often have their sexuality questioned or are considered "lucky".

Yes. Probably because women are not seen as a threat.

Women have less stringent standards in fields of law and military.

I think this is in a couple of your arguments.

Women can receive sympathy if they victimize their own children or husband.

So can men. There are people who feel sympathy for Darren Wilson, even though he executed an unarmed Mike Brown. Also, as above, women are generally not seen as a threat.

Twilight moms are acceptable but the reverse would result in a call to the police.

?

Women can have articles in magazines like Time suggesting they never be incarcerated ever and they be taken seriously.

?

No one says that prisons were a system invented for women.

Women not seen as threat. No one says that high heels were invented for men (the were btw). What is your point?

It is socially unacceptable to tell a women to suffer in silence.

Is it socially acceptable to tell a man to suffer in silence? Also, up until fairly recently, that was what people did.

It is acceptable to believe and in many cases promoted that sexism can and does only happen to women.

This may be a point. We are more aware that it happens to women.

An underage male victim of statutory rape can still be sentenced to pay child support.

That seems more like a problem with the law.

A woman tampering with a drink will often receive no response when witnessed.

Source?

Nastra, you have a couple points, but an awful lot of your argument is restating itself or is not really valid.

Neon Robot1 votes

[deleted]

Feather4261 votes

The problem as my article points out is that the instant you drop the "privilege" bomb you essentially kill the conversation. I will agree that the writer is being terrible about their point. I also wouldn't besmirch someone from identifying as a feminist but you can't blame someone for going with egalitarian these days. I had to shorten these to "..." past a certain point or else it wouldn't fit.

I had that same problem! This might end up being two posts, we'll see. Actually, my first reply to the post was in response to dropping the "privilege" bomb and was basically an attempt to put down all feminists. And egalitarianism should totally be a thing. (I ran out of room so this is part one.)

Which is an explanation of the privilege but does not eliminate its existence as one. To reverse the equation much of male privilege has explanations too but that does not usurp that it is privilege.

Okay, fair point, but only one example of "women are seen as weak" then. Claiming that men can't hit women and it's totally unfair that they don't have to join the army is a little contradictory.

I agree with you and yet prominent feminists like Daisy Buchanan and Amber Rudd argue the exact opposite. It's hard for men to jump on board with Feminism when at least some of it's prominent members are arguing against you.

I'd argue that they aren't feminists, but that is a little hard. I don't think it is the core group of feminists that are like that.

I would agree but I lifted a few of these by flipping privilege arguments from a few Feminist websites. Clearly some in Feminism think men peeing upright is a privilege. Furthermore if Feminists can argue for the quote "Male Privilege of Physical Strength" on the basis of biology than I feel free to do the same.

Biology might certainly be an advantage, but not a privilege. Peeing standing up is great and all, but should not be part of the "men have it better" feminist argument. "Male Privilege of Physical Strength" kind of makes sense in certain contexts. Now, I'm not saying that because men have an easier time building muscle than women, that is a privilege. It goes more along the lines of, men in video games get to have massive muscles, whereas women get massive boobs. Women are masculinized if they are muscular (although, I think you might agree that this is a pretty sexy lady .) As well, because we associate muscles with males, and they have larger upper body muscles in comparison with lower body muscles, we devalue lower body muscles (which is what females have more of). So no, physical strength is not a privilege, but an argument could be made for the value we place on muscle.

So I could modify that to say that female contraception is wide spread and heavily covered and subsidized.

Yeah, I agree with that. It might also be because women are usually the ones who lose out in an accidental pregnancy. That being said, I like the quote "It makes more sense to unload a gun than to shoot a bulletproof vest."

In which case he is a deadbeat Dad who would owe her back child support and would be incarcerated for failure to pay. Also, where I live we have a great many singles mothers who do not work. You should also see statistics on the U.K.

That is assuming she knows who the father is (not super common, but not impossible). Also, I think it would be very difficult for a single mother to find work. Take into account that she cannot work while she is pregnant (my cousin was just pregnant and did not even want to drive in a car because it was so uncomfortable). After she gives birth, she has this tiny helpless child that needs care 24/7. After maybe a year or two, she would be able to hire a babysitter while she goes off to work, but that requires having money to pay for a babysitter. Getting back into the work force after a couple of years is probably difficult, and if she's living off of welfare, she probably doesn't have the money to pay for a babysitter, so she is a stay at home mom and waits until her kid is old enough to go to school. Now it's been six or seven years since she's had a job, and she probably ends up working for minimum wage. Single moms have a hard time finding work and it's not because they are lazy.

Here in America men must register for the draft in order to be eligible to vote. Additionally men's enfranchisement is predicated on being draftable whereas womens is not. Yes they had to fight for it but now they have it without the requirements that men do.

I answered this in the first point. Stop deciding they are too weak (also I have a problem with conscription anyway).

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx This is a good start. Most of my commentary is based off of research.

Wow, okay, that is definitely a privilege. I think it is because society in general is more sympathetic towards women.

Either explanation would not negate it as a privilege.

If it is the jobs they occupy, it would not be a privilege. Men may also occupy those jobs. If it is their treatment, that is privilege.

An explanation does not eliminate it's existence as a privilege.

Privilege is based on treatment. If there are less homeless women than men is this because society takes care of its women better, because women reach out for help, or is there another reason? If there is no reason based on treatment, than it is merely statistic.

Couple of points here. First, that's word games, you can modify the subject and expression to any outcome. Second, according to Feministallies, modern Feminism recognizes that men are taught to be in control at all times leading to a failure to seek help so Feminism apparently doesn't see the issue as gendered or anti-women. Third, an explanation doesn't negate it as a privilege.

Privilege is being allowed to do something while someone else is not. If women are allowed to seek help while men are not, that is privilege. Suicide rates are a side effect.

Actually there are government programs covering a wide variety of subjects not simply relating to wellness.

It's only fairly recently that women are allowed to occupy the same jobs as men and have the same rights as men, some of them will need support. I agree that people of all kinds will also need support, but if a group is oppressed, they will probably need it more.

And yet it isn't.

Yeah, okay that one is privilege.

Explanations don't eliminate their existence as privileges. And it is a privilege women have of the male/female dichotomy. He wants sex so he must provide.

And if she wanted sex, she would provide. Also, the buying of a girl a drink does not mean that she will go home with the guy. If he is smart and he wants sex, he is allowed to walk up to her and say "yo, so I think you're hot and stuff, would you like to come back to my place because I have a bed." Also, my friends have dragged my to clubs in the past and I will say that I have never been bought a drink (there was one occasion where a stranger bought our group drinks, but I did not have any), but as soon as we got onto the dance floor, guys came up behind us to dance with us. When I say dance, I mean they put their crotch on your butt and their hands on your waist, but the hands don't stay there even a second. If you do not want a hand down your pants, you either have to grab it before it gets too low, or take their hands off of you by force (which is what I would do) and walk away from them. (They will of course call after you "What's wrong?") The way women are treated in clubs is not a privilege. Guys think that dancing is an invitation to feel you up and that buying a girl drinks means she will go home with him.

Which would still be a privilege. Moving on.

Okay, but at least that one makes sense right?

See the word "nearly".

I'm pretty sure that peoples feelings are almost always considered.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/09/do-women-or-men-save-more-for-retirement/index.htm Facts are not sexist. They just are. Women make less money and live longer. Explanations do not negate privilege.

Claiming that women do not contribute as much when they are not being allowed to contribute as much is sexist. They earn less money than men for the same work, that is sexist. (I scratched out living longer because it is your next point.) It is not a privilege to be paid less.

There are a multitude of reasons that women live longer that are not related to anatomy.

Found this article about why women live longer than men. This one too. This one is written by a doctor. A lot of the reasons given are biological, and some are social (reasons being less reckless better support group and so on). As for it being privilege, it is not. If anything, it is a side effect of privilege.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/ Here is a start.

Your article does say "Men don't talk about it," so I would say it is part of the "Men are not allowed to have feelings/weakness" issue. It should receive more funding and awareness.

I'll give you that that is a stereotype but it's still a privilege to be free to do it. Reverse argument, it's a male privilege to have manual labor as a norm.

Still not a good thing. (That would be like saying that blondes are allowed to be dumb because people expect it.) I wouldn't call the ability to participate in manual labour a privilege.

Feather4261 votes

Part 2

A right that men don't have. Beyond that men do not have the right to opt out if an accidental pregnancy occurs.

Men do not have the right to own a woman's body. That is not a privilege, that is just human rights. If a woman wants an abortion, it is her body. If a woman wants to give birth, it is her body. It is not up to the man.

Which would still be a privilege. Moving on.

sure

They can still claim it without question.

There used to be more reason behind it. There isn't as much now.

Of course but only male privilege is highlighted. The norm is not what I do

Fair enough

Equal is equal. If the past precedent is all that is necessary to argue for such things than equality can never be achieved because the past can never be undone. Beyond that, if Feminism is about all people being equal than how is it okay for it to emphasize any gender? That'd be like saying that is okay for anti-racism to mean no racism for everyone but especially Latinos. And my point it should either be "men only" and "women only" or neither. You argument is tacitly asking for discrimination of allowance based purely off of gender. That is sexism.

I would argue that if there is a community of Latinos being discriminated against, it makes sense to have a Latino support group. The Latinos are clearly not discriminating against each other, so it makes sense that the group would exclude other factors. If one gender has dominated the other gender for a long enough time, it is safe to assume that the oppressed gender will need help getting back on their feet. In America, a similar thing happened with race when the slaves were freed, but they did not get any help. Instead they were told that they had to make it on their own.

But men can't do that. The reverse would be the male privilege of "boys will be boys."

That's not really something that women would say about men, but I get your point.

I'm saying that consistently you see more positive female characters on T.V. in comparison to the male ones. In general women are depicted better and people would not stand for it if you swapped Peter and Lois Griffin. Or Homer and Marge. Or Ray Romano and Patricia Heaton...I could go on.

I believe that after a long time of devaluing women, the response is to create positive female characters. I will point you in the direction of Legend of Korra and say that TV shows that do not play on the dumb husband with the smart wife often show a more equal depiction of male and female characters.

I am a business owner. According a certain % of my employees MUST be female.

That is to stop people from being sexist. That is more of a grey area. On one hand, there could be less job competition for women, but on the other hand, employers can't refuse someone a job just because of gender.

Similar problems as above. There are prominent feminists who argue otherwise. And it's still privilege regardless. That's an explanation of the existence of that privilege.

Okay, fair.

I haven't brought up the unequal standards of men and women in service. Only that women are required to register for the draft in exchange for enfranchisement in opposition to men who do.

People who join the army should be fit. I don't know what the standards are, but I found a fitness test which was push ups, sit ups, and a two mile run. I think it is discussed above, but men have the advantage when it comes to upper body, so two of the exercises are in their favour.

The Ferguson incident is far more complicated than that and we minorities are in far less lockstep over that than you might think. Additionally find me a single instance of a man receiving sympathy for victimizing his family. I actually found a disturbing statistic in the midst of this. Only 27% of mothers who kill their kids are sent to prison whereas 72% of fathers are sent to prison.

That is true, there is a lot going on. Men probably do not receive sympathy for killing their families in particular. That is rather disturbing. It is no excuse, but there is a condition called postpartum depression (link) which includes the symptom of wanting to hurt others. The person you are around the most, being the child, is most at risk. I'm guessing that instead of being sent to prison, these people were sent to rehabilitation facilities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

While this article does hold a focus on women, it does say that it would benefit all perpetrators on non-violent crimes. It is suggesting that as an alternative to incarceration, there is an effort to rehabilitate, which I agree with. It should be an option open to everyone however, not just women.

If I told you that prisons were something created for women that would sound pretty terrible and sexist, no?

Point made, but to be fair, I have never heard that said until reading that article. (And it is a little too specific to be a privilege.)

Ever heard of the term "Man up!"

Okay, yes (I think that this is in several other points)

Which would still be a privilege.

This in itself I would not call a privilege. It has more to do with the way the rape of a man is treated versus the rape of a woman. (I think there was a different point that I agreed with on that topic.)

I can't find my source on this so I'll drop it.

It may have been a little unfair to ask for a source. I think this has to do with the way female victims and male victims are treated again.

I'd beg to differ. Most of these are different based on nuance. I'll agree they cover similar topics but they're all different and my responses demonstrate their validity. Most of what you do is explain the circumstances. That however does not negate the privilege. My effectively free education is conferred by others actions on my ancestors. There is an explanation as to why but that does not change its nature as a privilege.

I think a lot of them are different examples based on the same idea. (That might just be the way I view things though.) There are valid points, but not all are equally valid. I do explain the circumstances for some of them, I admit. Sometimes, however, the circumstance is what dictates whether or not it is privilege. A free education due to previous circumstances is privilege (so is having an education, I guess), but not in the negative sense that men earn more money than women is privilege.

I appreciate your candor and willingness to engage in a dialogue!

Thank you very much :) I also very much enjoy discussing this with you, I think your point of view is very interesting.

Neon Robot2 votes

[deleted]

Theorchero1 votes

Same here!

Holy shit, we are a lot alike. We have virtually the same opinions. +1, old chap!

Men do not have the right to own a woman's body. That is not a privilege, that is just human rights. If a woman wants an abortion, it is her body. If a woman wants to give birth, it is her body. It is not up to the man.

The problem is that her choice will automatically impact the man no matter what his desires are and without his consent. Do you not see the issue here? Let's strip out subjectivity and hit the heart of the matter. A person is allowed to make a unilateral choice that will directly impact all aspects of the life of another person without their consent or input. Women would not stand for it if the tables were turned. I feel men should be allowed a legal opt out in the form of legal paternal surrender.

I would argue that if there is a community of Latinos being discriminated against, it makes sense to have a Latino support group. The Latinos are clearly not discriminating against each other, so it makes sense that the group would exclude other factors. If one gender has dominated the other gender for a long enough time, it is safe to assume that the oppressed gender will need help getting back on their feet. In America, a similar thing happened with race when the slaves were freed, but they did not get any help. Instead they were told that they had to make it on their own.

Sure, but it wouldn't be okay for us to kick out all the blacks. There is a difference between serving specified needs and selectively segregating. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be programs for those who need help. It's when you inject such ideas as a (Latino only space; NO WHITES ALLOWED!) If we as a people are to demand our own special space that others cannot enter than we should at least be willing to let others, even our prior oppressors do the same. Otherwise we're just flipping the coin.

I believe that after a long time of devaluing women, the response is to create positive female characters. I will point you in the direction of Legend of Korra and say that TV shows that do not play on the dumb husband with the smart wife often show a more equal depiction of male and female characters.

Actually I really like that show. I also agree that equality appears on programs that avoid misandrist or misogynist stereotypes of gender.

That is to stop people from being sexist. That is more of a grey area. On one hand, there could be less job competition for women, but on the other hand, employers can't refuse someone a job just because of gender.

That doesn't stop sexism. In fact it's just a different way of promoting it. Example: As a minority most businesses have quotas they must reach to avoid fines. Every job I've ever had has been overshadowed by a single question: Did I actually earn this? I always have to wonder if I got a job because of the box I check on a piece of paper or was it on my own value as a person and a worker. The same applies to women. Did she really deserve the job she received or were all the other candidates male and they needed a woman to hit quota? Additionally we already have laws that make discrimination on the basis of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, and handicap a crime. Creating a law that forces people to higher someone that checks a box doesn't stop discrimination. To me, it promotes it.

People who join the army should be fit. I don't know what the standards are, but I found a fitness test which was push ups, sit ups, and a two mile run. I think it is discussed above, but men have the advantage when it comes to upper body, so two of the exercises are in their favour.

I think that everyone in a physical field should have to hit an across the board level of physical fitness. Particularly if there is a chance of life and death scenarios. It makes no sense for their to be two sets of standards because than one group will be less physically capable than the other and be at higher risk for injury or death.

That is true, there is a lot going on. Men probably do not receive sympathy for killing their families in particular. That is rather disturbing. It is no excuse, but there is a condition called postpartum depression which includes the symptom of wanting to hurt others. The person you are around the most, being the child, is most at risk. I'm guessing that instead of being sent to prison, these people were sent to rehabilitation facilities.

Yes. The problem is the inequality. If these people are sick they should be receiving treatment but there is a clear gendered difference here. Actually what bothers me more was that I knew of postpartum depression but I did not know that men could get it.

While this article does hold a focus on women, it does say that it would benefit all perpetrators on non-violent crimes. It is suggesting that as an alternative to incarceration, there is an effort to rehabilitate, which I agree with. It should be an option open to everyone however, not just women.

Agree completely. I just want to point out though that the title of that article could have been phrased better.

Point made, but to be fair, I have never heard that said until reading that article. (And it is a little too specific to be a privilege.)

I'll accept that. I rescind this one too.

Okay, yes (I think that this is in several other points)

This in itself I would not call a privilege. It has more to do with the way the rape of a man is treated versus the rape of a woman. (I think there was a different point that I agreed with on that topic.)

Probably. I think we're close enough on this one we can just drop it.

It may have been a little unfair to ask for a source. I think this has to do with the way female victims and male victims are treated again.

Nah, we're having a conversation and we've actually covered a lot of ground here.

I think a lot of them are different examples based on the same idea. (That might just be the way I view things though.) There are valid points, but not all are equally valid. I do explain the circumstances for some of them, I admit. Sometimes, however, the circumstance is what dictates whether or not it is privilege. A free education due to previous circumstances is privilege (so is having an education, I guess), but not in the negative sense that men earn more money than women is privilege.

Yeah, well it was a list I cooked up off the top of my head at 3:00 a.m. so I don't consider it to be authoritative. Still this discussion has covered a great deal of space and it's been very substantial. If conversations like this were always this easy I think we'd solve most of the worlds problems.

Thank you very much :) I also very much enjoy discussing this with you, I think your point of view is very interesting.

Same here!

Holy shit, we are a lot alike. We have virtually the same opinions. +1, old chap!

Feather4261 votes

Sorry it's been a while

Right,

The problem is that her choice will automatically impact the man no matter what his desires are and without his consent. Do you not see the issue here? Let's strip out subjectivity and hit the heart of the matter. A person is allowed to make a unilateral choice that will directly impact all aspects of the life of another person without their consent or input. Women would not stand for it if the tables were turned. I feel men should be allowed a legal opt out in the form of legal paternal surrender.

If the woman is in a caring relationship with the father, than it will most likely be a discussion between both potential parents. The choice will ultimately impact both lives, but in most cases, I am fairly certain I can make the assumption that it will have a far greater impact on the woman, since she is the one carrying the child inside of her. She will be the one who has to deal with the health risks and pain that go with being pregnant. I really don't think there is any middle ground in this case. I think most people would agree that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she should be able to abort. What people often don't agree on is whether if it is an accident she should have the option. If one were to argue about the potential of the child and that it has done nothing wrong, the same argument should apply to the rapists child. Neither life is worth more, but people have less sympathy if they feel it was her fault she got pregnant. If you don't believe that the girl who got pregnant by accident should be able to abort, than there should be no question about saying that a girl who was raped should not be able to abort and following the same logic, you should be against the morning after pill being used since contraception could have already occurred.

Sure, but it wouldn't be okay for us to kick out all the blacks. There is a difference between serving specified needs and selectively segregating. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be programs for those who need help. It's when you inject such ideas as a (Latino only space; NO WHITES ALLOWED!) If we as a people are to demand our own special space that others cannot enter than we should at least be willing to let others, even our prior oppressors do the same. Otherwise we're just flipping the coin.

That is fair. I would argue that there do seem to be "boys only" spaces in video games such as COD. I realise the player base is hostile (at best) to begin with, but when a girl starts to play, she is immediately insulted and told to go back to the kitchen.

Actually I really like that show. I also agree that equality appears on programs that avoid misandrist or misogynist stereotypes of gender.

:) Definitely all shows should strive for that.

That doesn't stop sexism. In fact it's just a different way of promoting it. Example: As a minority most businesses have quotas they must reach to avoid fines. Every job I've ever had has been overshadowed by a single question: Did I actually earn this? I always have to wonder if I got a job because of the box I check on a piece of paper or was it on my own value as a person and a worker. The same applies to women. Did she really deserve the job she received or were all the other candidates male and they needed a woman to hit quota? Additionally we already have laws that make discrimination on the basis of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, and handicap a crime. Creating a law that forces people to higher someone that checks a box doesn't stop discrimination. To me, it promotes it.

That is true, someone really should be hired because they are the best, not because of gender. I think it might be difficult to prove that someone really was discriminating based on race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or handicap which is why that law exists.

I think that everyone in a physical field should have to hit an across the board level of physical fitness. Particularly if there is a chance of life and death scenarios. It makes no sense for their to be two sets of standards because than one group will be less physically capable than the other and be at higher risk for injury or death.

I agree

Yes. The problem is the inequality. If these people are sick they should be receiving treatment but there is a clear gendered difference here. Actually what bothers me more was that I knew of postpartum depression but I did not know that men could get it.

I actually had no idea that men could get postpartum depression. I thought it had to do with hormones being messed up after giving birth. People who need help definitely need to be getting the help they deserve.

Agree completely. I just want to point out though that the title of that article could have been phrased better.

True

Yeah, well it was a list I cooked up off the top of my head at 3:00 a.m. so I don't consider it to be authoritative. Still this discussion has covered a great deal of space and it's been very substantial. If conversations like this were always this easy I think we'd solve most of the worlds problems.

I think a lot of things would be better solved with a discussion rather than yelling insults :)

Neon Robot1 votes

[deleted]

Feather4261 votes

No it isn't. I am saying that it is bad that men are taught not to hit women but not vice versa which would be an issue dealing with child socialization. By contrast the joining the army issue deals with differing standards and practices in regards to military service which has nothing to do with child socialization. The two things were separate points that dealt with different issues and hence why they were in different points.

Alright, fair enough. I think I was just taught not to hit people.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and agree that the majority of Feminists aren't like that. The problem is that like the two Feminists I cited these are toxic Feminists with huge followings who are very much in the public eye.

I agree that is a problem. I think another contributing factor is people not realizing what feminism actually is and deciding that all feminists hold the same beliefs. This can be seen any time a post about feminism shows up on imgur.com or on the league of legends forum for example. Coming out of this, there seems to be a meninist movement mostly focused on derailing feminism.

I wouldn't argue that they are lazy. That being said just your example seems crazy to me but not for the reason you might think. I've worked with single moms and married women in the past and usually they were allowed a maximum of three months maternity leave before they had to come back to work. Maybe it's different in Canada but here you wouldn't get a year or two unless you moved to a government program based life. Even then, I'm not saying there aren't reasons for it. It's just still a privilege.

Three months is crazy! You would have to work pretty much up until you gave birth and then you don't get too long to recover and then you have to trust a babysitter with your tiny human. Not to mention, you're still breastfeeding at this point, so you end up lactating randomly and that's super uncomfortable at work. I'd agree with you (I guess, but I'm still going to think of it as more of a necessity than privilege).

Historically in America when women were fighting for the vote we were in the midst of WWI. The first bill drafted to grant women enfranchisement called for women to be draftable into "War Work" in the least if not combat duty. Suffragettes protested against that bill until one without drafting was passed. More painfully that same year the government executed a group of men for refusing the draft. The case had made its way to the supreme court that ruled that men's enfranchisement was predicated on being draftable. Beyond that it's been decades since women gained the right to vote and yet have made no effort to equalize the situation.

That's really sad and totally not fair. To be honest, I think you guys should be fighting against conscription entirely. I do know that woman were not allowed in combat, because I remember reading a story about a woman who enrolled in the army as a man (I wish I would remember the name and whether it was WWI or WWII) and after being injured was discovered (basically, Fa Mulan) and had to fight to be put back on the front lines.

It's about treatment. The statistics show that when women enter a workplace the job becomes markedly safer.

Is that because the women make it safer, or is it made safer because of women?

So I dug into this quite a bit and what I found was that it came down to a few major issues. Men by and large have fewer social programs meant for them so receiving training and assistance is harder. This is strictly an American statement here but the majority of welfare programs, vocational training, and health services is directed at women. Men are more likely to be arrested for homeless crimes such as panhandling, loitering, or sleeping in public. Fewer crisis intervention programs aimed at men to prevent homelessness. Women are often short listed as well for housing and services because they are more likely to have a child or become pregnant. I found a good starting point:

There should be more substance abuse programs aimed at homeless men, and you need to get your veterans off the streets. Part of the problem is also due to lack of free healthcare. They need help, but have no way to get it. Some of it also seems to come from the societal "men must be strong and not show when they are hurting" (at least according to the article). Homelessness is a really difficult problem to solve because there are so many reasons for it to happen.

I'll agree with you here but darn that sounds cold.

It was a little cold

How oppressed are we talking here because women in the U.S. make up the majority of voters and the population and control the majority of the money and are the majority of the employed and are projected to become the majority of leadership positions in companies within the decade and earn more than their male peers if they're under the age of thirty.

Women make up about half of the population. If they are a majority, it's going to be by 1 or 2 percent. That is fair though, in America, as a group they probably don't need the support as much. There are other countries, however, in which women still do not have rights. I don't know if you've heard of acid throwing, but there are a number of countries in which it is legal to attack women with acid. That would be where women are oppressed, not America.

Okay I can jump in here and claim that minorities are at least somewhat to blame for this. I don't know if you've ever been to say a Latino club before but all that happens but without negative responses. Also, for the sake of levity I'll rescind this as a female privilege.

I haven't been to a Latino club, but I also haven't been felt up exclusively by minorities. Sometimes a girl wants to be felt up, and that's okay, but a lot of times it happens without consent.

Yes, I am saying that women have their feelings considered more.

That's fair. I think that if a woman's feelings are hurt, she is more likely to speak up than if it were a man's feelings hurt.

I actually need to remove this point for a different reason. I looked into the earning rates between men a women and here is what I found. Obviously this applies to America. So yeah, turns out at least here in America we've pretty much eliminated that inequality. So now women will actually be contributing more than men.

That's good. I don't really think of that as contributing more, just for longer.

Whitakker2 votes

I don't think I've ever met two people who agreed on what true "feminism" should be/look/sound like. I believe that's one of, if not the biggest problem attached to this movement.

Do I want women to be able to earn as much as me? Sure. Do I want women to be able to serve their country in all the capacities a man can? Hell, if they prove they've got the stuff, let 'em go for it. Is there a huge bias against women in politics? Well, it sure seems that way nowadays.

However, you must confess that compared to most of the world, women in the "Western" world are treated slightly below the standards we regard to deities. You can call "#firstworldproblems" on me if you want, but it's true.

Feather4261 votes

True feminism is supposed to be exactly this:

To preface, I’m not a racist, or sexist, I believe in equal rights for everyone, in hard work and sensible ethics that everyone should follow to the best of their ability.

Possibly with the addition of no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Is there a huge bias against women in politics? Well, it sure seems that way nowadays.

So, people will claim that women are unfit to run a country because they have periods, and it's still up for debate whether or not women need to be treated better?

However, you must confess that compared to most of the world, women in the "Western" world are treated slightly below the standards we regard to deities. You can call "#firstworldproblems" on me if you want, but it's true.

Female celebrities get their phones hacked and nudes released, and it's their fault because they took the pictures. Ladies get raped and it was their fault for wearing that outfit. Women get catcalled all the time and they should be taking it as a complement instead of being creeped out or genuinely fearing for their safety. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was the treatment of a goddess.

Neon Robot1 votes

[deleted]

Feather4261 votes

And yet women still get elected to high office and lead countries. At a certain point you need to accept that people will always be terrible to some degree and that targeting easy things to cause problems is always going to happen. I'd love to live in a world where a person wouldn't ask a question like that but I'd also like to live in a world where no one murders, steals, commits identity fraud, or commits arson but none of those things are even capable of being eliminated.

I'd argue that that has yet to happen in america and most world leaders are male. My problem is more along the lines of: women are mostly told they can't run an office because they are a woman, but men would get told that based on their ideas (I could be wrong about this, but this seems like the way it goes generally). You wouldn't even bring up that a guy can't run a country because he has a penis and therefore his sex drive will get in the way of running a country because that's just silly. I'd love to live in a world where there is no crime also, but for now, I'd settle for a world where there is no crime directed at somebody for their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

My question to you would be at what exact point is it mission accomplished? At what point is feminism effectively "done"?

Feminism is never done; it is the idea that all people are equal. Society has a long way to go before people stop discriminating against people, but that would be mission accomplished. If that happens, I'm guessing the word goes away, but the idea should stay.

And yet they still can be millionaires, live long and happy lives, vote, choose their profession, and receive equal protection under the letter if not the spirit of the law. Additionally these women's picture leaks also lead to the involvement of the F.B.I. whereas a normal person couldn't expect Federal authorities and need I point out the majority of society condemned the leaks and have continually supported the actresses.

It is true, they can do all those things (even if it had to be put into the law that they could, just like it had to be put into the law that black people were people). The involvement of the FBI happens because they are a public figure and not because they are a woman (although this is a crime usually targeted at women). It is true that it is discouraged, but there are always people willing to participate in spreading the photos (this goes back to society always having a few bad apples I guess). I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about this, but Shia Labeouf recently came out and said that he was sexually assaulted and was not taken nearly as seriously because he was attacked by a girl.

That being said, phone hackings and data leaks are in fact the very epitome of #firstworldproblems. You have to be a first world person to even have problems like that. People in the second and third world have bigger problems like finding food, consistent work, avoiding local warlords, and not dying.

It should be included that in some areas people are sold (I don't have statistics, but willing to bet that women are sold more often than men). Women are raped and married off at a young age to an older man without any say in the matter.

Let's be frank though, in society at large that is not the general feeling and it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest as such. Societies general feeling is that rape is bad and something you don't do. From movies to television rape as far as I know isn't depicted as a good thing.

That is true. I think there is enough victim blaming going on that the idea that "rape is bad" gets lost under "well it was obviously her fault." Sometimes it can be hard to remember the larger part of society condemns it.

I have several large issues here. First, a lot of the focus on catcalling avoids the fact that the majority of these videos are taken in largely minority neighborhoods and feature mainly minority men and more than a few homeless. Now just the racial implications of a white woman making disgusted faces walking through a minority neighborhood as men of color catcall is problematic. I'd like to point out that most of these men either remember or have family members who remember a time when looking her in the eyes would have resulted in a lynching. Her and others actions are the rhetorical equivalent of desiring them to cast their eyes back down and not address their "better". Additionally it smacks of cultural imposition that these primarily white people walk through minority neighborhoods and then expect them to abide by their social norms. As though everyone must live exactly as her friends and family do. I pray these people never leave the country for somewhere like Peru and realizes the rest of the planet isn't an extension of New York or San Francisco. Second, show me an instance where catcalling has resulted in anything more than a few minutes of irritation. I'm not trying to downplay the problem but if you're going to connect it to genuinely fearing for safety you need to provide some reason to believe that it might escalate to a dangerous level. Indeed, statistics show that men are primarily victims of violent crime, when rapes occur it is usually between acquainted parties so a random catcalling almost never leads to a sex crime, so...What am I missing here?

Did not realize that rape victims usually knew their attacker. I would say it is a real fear, because it could happen. This video happens downtown New York and may be cherry picking a little. I rewatched the video in the link, and it does appear that most of the people who made comments were a minority, but not all. I disagree with your argument that women think they are somehow better. Women genuinely do not like being catcalled. Some of the videos might be set up, but it is a real thing that happens. If someone follows a woman down the street like in the first video, I believe they have a reason to be scared.

Neon Robot1 votes

[deleted]

Feather4261 votes

Two parter here. First, to be frank the idea of democracy as a whole is a relatively new one along with concepts like equality and so forth. I'd say we're doing pretty darn well in comparison to the rest of human history.

I guess that is fair.

Also, it's interesting that in fact men in leadership roles have made bad decisions because of their sex drive.

I actually have never heard this before, that's kind of funny.

Second, I'd like to live in a world like that too but I just don't think it will ever happen. To me a world without discrimination would be like asking for a world without terrible people and since that isn't possible either I just don't consider it a reasonable bench mark.

I'd like to believe that at some point in the future people stop discriminating based off of how somebody looks, but if it happens, I realize it won't be in my lifetime. It's really kind of sad that we're the "most advanced species" but I don't see cats attacking each other based on the colour of their fur.

I'm talking about organized movement based Feminism. Feminist organizations and the like. Sort of like how minorities like myself see themselves getting better treatment in western society we have felt less and less of a need to have these organizations and join them. One day it can be inferred that we'll be functionally equal and we won't need them anymore.

I don't know... with what's been going on with Ferguson... I'd like that to happen though. We shouldn't need organizations to tell people they are equal.

What bothers me the most about this is the response to Shia has generally been, well he should be happy about it. Additionally I don't see Feminist organizations going on television speaking on his behalf.

That is very true, he needs some people to step up for him. I don't generally think the response that he should be happy about it is from women, but people need to realize that rape is rape no matter if you are a guy or a girl or anything in between.

And minority men in many of those same countries are subject to forced conscription or are also bought and sold into slavery. Some countries like the UAE do it quite openly. What upsets me is that in response to this I tried looking into slavery rates by gender and while female slavery is heavily tracked there is practically no analysis on male slavery so I can't even say.

That's actually really disappointing. I think because feminism came from women, it tends to focus on them. What we need now is an equalist movement.

"when rapes occur it is usually between acquainted parties" means that women usually know their rapists. As I was pointing out a rape victim very often knows her attacker so statistically speaking it is incredibly rare for a catcalling to turn into a rape. Hence my statement.

I realize that, but I don't think a lot of women know that and it is easy to be afraid of that happening when a guy (who is probably much bigger than you) follows you down the street. Just because it is statistically unlikely does not mean that it can't happen.

Actually that is the exact video I was talking about but the same applies for the woman who does cards against street harassment.

I don't think they picked a specific part of New York, they had ten hours of footage. I looked up cards against street harassment goes about it the wrong way in some of her videos (I just looked her up).

That's the big issue is that there is a huge amount of culture and race shaming that is implied here and it bothers me. Also, to clarify I wasn't saying the women actually think they are better. I was saying that it is a rhetorical or has the effect of implying that to someone who is a minority. I would also agree that Anglo women or those of a western culture don't like it. In my neighborhood and in the neighborhoods of other races as well as in communities around the world such attitudes greatly differ. There seems to be a genuine failure on the part of these people to realize that not everyone lives exactly like western people and more importantly does NOT share their social mores and behaviors.

I might have missed the race and culture shaming. I'm not sure that I can agree that cat calls are embedded in a racial culture. To be honest, I think it might be an urban thing (I could be wrong). I'm from Scarborough, if I walk around there, I am less likely to get cat called (because there are less people) than if I walked around New York, but it might still happen. (Side note: I've been honked at, I've had guys try to pick me up, I've had guys drive up next to me and offer a ride, and I've had guys try to follow me home.) Also the comedian in the news interview has the same reaction. I believe that comments could be taken different ways, but it has an awful lot to do with what is said and the intent behind it (Smile! SMILE!!).

I won't tell someone how to feel but I will point out that decades of accumulated crime statistics show that the likelihood of something occurring is incredibly low.

Just because a statistic is low, does not mean impossible.

Neon Robot1 votes

[deleted]

Feather4261 votes

Actually animals are much more like humans than most people think and actually show behaviors such as bullying and killing for pleasure. Particularly dolphins.

I will never look at dolphins the same way again. We may need to stop calling ourselves the most advanced species if we can't even get past that.

Truth be told in the larger picture of minority relations things are better for us particularly on a day to day scale. That's something we sometimes forget when something like Ferguson blows up on television. To be frank, we forget our own problems. The black community has an issue with black on black crime. We have a problem with gangs and organized crime. Even then, bad cops exist and so do bad people. If you want an instance of excessive police force I'd point to Eric Garner but even the reasons for his death expand beyond just the police to even the reason he was in trouble in the first place. Sometimes I feel like things like Ferguson give us an easy outlet for complicated problems.

Eric Garner was to be arrested for selling cigarettes. He had no weapon on him, and was not resisting arrest, so there was no reason to use excessive force. Tamir Rice was holding a BB gun and was shot within seconds of the police arriving. There have been so many people murdered for no reason. Often after a police shooting, the victim is denied medical services that could save their lives. From my point of view, it looks like either a lot of racist police officers, or a lot of police officers on a power trip, or a little of both. Either way, bad people should not end up as cops, there needs to be a better way to screen for that. Ferguson may be an outlet, it is still justified.

You might be my favorite Feminist.

Well I am pretty much the best :) (just kidding)

I would agree completely. The first step I feel is creating a heightened emphasis on "equality".

Absolutely

Well of course. At the same time however we need to have an equal reaction to a problem and better education about what realistically may occur so that people can better protect themselves. Otherwise we create unrealistic expectations which create their own problems.

That is true.

I can't find the exact article but someone reviewed the tape and mapped out where the video was shot. 59% of the video takes place in the overwhelmingly black neighborhood of Harlem. 21% occurs in Times Square. 8% by Canal. 4% in the village. The remaining eight 8% can't be identified. In fact over half of the sequences in the video occur on one street. 125th St. In Harlem. Half the video, one street. Black neighborhood. To understand why minorities might be upset about a video showing a white woman walking through an ethnically black neighborhood with a look of disgust I'd recommend reading the story of Emmit Till. He's reflective of a how things used to be. There are alot of Grandparents pictures with family members who aren't around because they looked or spoke to the wrong woman. She may not have meant to but she struck a deep and bleeding wound for minorities.

I didn't realize the video was shot mostly in Harlem. (I don't read her face as a look of disgust, I think it's just blank.) I don't really think it's fair to compare some guy following/shouting things at a girl walking by to Emmett Till. For one thing, Emmett didn't catcall the Bryant. It isn't clear exactly what happened, but as far as I can tell, the only mistake he made was trying to grab her hand/wrist. He was a 14 year old kid who was trying to impress some friends. (I read the story on Wikipedia and it's absolutely horrible. He was a kid. What the hell is wrong with people?) You may have a fair point that it may remind people of things like that that have happened in the past, but I don't see it being about that any more (at least not from the woman's perspective). To be honest, it is super annoying to be honked and yelled at from a car, but it is genuinely worrying when someone pulls over next to you to talk, or tries to follow you home (especially if it is an older man). I will say that it doesn't happen exclusively to girls thanks to this video in which most of the comments come from younger girls (but there are some that come from guys).

It's an American issue and a reason the video is so disturbing to me. You're right though it is entirely based off of where you live and the cultures you share space with. I'll leave you with a video of a woman walking through downtown Auckland, New Zealand to show how very much this is a culture issue.

Very true. I think it's interesting that she took the time to talk to the people who did try to talk to her, instead of just ignoring them.

It does however mean that you should likely not treat it as a certainty nor overstate your case for it. Doing so will A. Feed racial bias's and promote bigotry. See: https://twitter.com/JoyceCarolOates/status/527813848792051712 (The key here is that that is an ethnically white area) B. Cause undue anxiety which is bad for your health. C. Cause you to give a false representation of the reality of a situation damaging any potential response to the problem. Example: There were examples of black men going way too far in speaking to that woman but since the video has such a clear racial bias it can easily be dismissed by black men as yet more fear mongering about them preventing them from reflecting on their behavior. When in doubt, focus on being as rational and collected as possible.

Personally, the only time I am actually worried about being catcalled is if the person starts to follow me. I don't think a lot of girls jump immediately to "he's gonna rape me" from having someone on the streets say "hey beautiful." When I say there is a chance that a catcall turns into rape, I am referring to the people that have clearly gone too far.

Trinityunicorn1 votes

Ladies get raped and it was their fault for wearing that outfit.

This says more about you than it does about the ladies you're talking about.

Feather4261 votes

I'm talking about comments that have been made about women who get raped, not my own opinion. There is also a thing called slut shaming.

Trinityunicorn1 votes

My bad, apologies

Feather4261 votes

Apology accepted, I get that sarcasm can be a hard thing to hear over the internet. :)

Trinityunicorn1 votes

What if it means the doctrine about females? The whole thing got started because there was a LOT of oppression of women. I'm a woman and I don't necessarily even want equality in terms of doing dirty jobs or heavy lifting, if there is a woman who does though, more power to her. I personally like men holding doors for me. I don't feel demeaned by it at all, and at least in my eyes, it shows some sort of consideration about the guy that's doing it. I appreciate it.

There was a concept introduced to me that I thought was very wise, it said, don't be against something be FOR something. That one view is negative and the other is positive and more likely to meet with success.

Not sure why you bring your paper here, nor what you want from the community about it. I will say this, you may feel that some of the ideas your teacher promoted were wrong, and that very well may be, the opposite though may also be just as wrong. We need to learn this isn't a power over another kind of world, but what is going to work is a power with world.

When you get out into the job world, take a look around you, see how many women are in the industries in comparison to men. Yes some jobs are primarily women, but by far you will find this world isn't run by women in equal positions of power and all too often of lesser pay.

On a much lighter note, I found this to be funny and somewhat true in a generic sense. http://physicsgeek.mu.nu/archives/woman1.jpg

Some countries do give men time off, they also can be primary parents, I applaud that, if they are willing to be the nurturers. I will also mention that my ex did NOT want full custody of our daughter....its not that he doesn't love her, he's just ill prepared to raise a child in terms of emotional connection and empathy and understanding. When faced with the option to do so, he declined. Maybe you won't! It is quite rewarding but there is no manual that is correct to follow, and its not nearly as clear cut as most jobs.

My niece and nephew have switched roles and she is the primary breadwinner, she has a doctorate and so they move where her job is. In her industry I'd say there are probably more men and many of them making more money, and some making less. He likes to cook and clean and is nit picky about cleaning so he does the majority of it.

In the video, most likely the reason that people didn't intervene was that they didn't think that the man could be restrained by the woman whereas the perception of the opposite is in general physically valid. As a woman myself, I'd never start a physical confrontation with a man because more than likely he could overpower me.

All in all this isn't really about what you really believe as much as it is an in your face teach kind of paper, I hope anyway. If it is your bias in life, you may find this to be your reality.

Theorchero1 votes

Men are taught not to hit women because they are weak and they will break them.

How does that refute his point?

This is an example of why men need feminism. If women were taken as a serious threat, you can bet there would be a response.

"Men need feminism!" Please. Feminism is nothing more than women trying to form a matriarchy. They only fight for "equal" rights when it's convenient for them.

Being pregnant is not fun, giving birth is no picnic, and this is anatomy, not privilege.

And having no part of the decision of abortion of your child? She can abort it without your permission and against your consent, or vise versa. It's equally the man's child but often he is neither informed nor even has a say in the matter.

I'm gonna go ahead and say I live in Canada where healthcare is free (Canadian privilege O.o). That being said, there are male drug-based contraceptives, but I don't think they are widely distributed.

We're talking about the US. There aren't any male subsidized contraceptives. There are plenty of places that give free condoms, but that's because of organizations dedicated to safe sex, not the government.

To be fair, men can run off after getting a woman pregnant and leave her with no way to pay for kids. I don't think there are very many mothers out there who decide they want to have children and not work at all.

Go look in a poor area. Plenty of "model" apartment complexes are filled with these wastes of space named "baby mommas." They are either white trash or minority women who refuse to find meaningful work and simply continue to have children so they are taken care of by the government and welfare. Often their children get taken from them, so they just have more, usually having many kids from different fathers. About the fathers abandoning the girl, well find a court that wouldn't immediately grant her child support if she knew the father. Don't even get me started on how child support is more often spent on luxuries than actually taking care of the child and the complete bias towards women in the child support system.

Don't know how that works in America, but that seems kind of silly. Also worth mentioning that there are women in the army, even though it hasn't been that long since they were allowed to be and they are heavily discouraged from it. Women also had to fight for the right to vote.

You're right, it's silly. It's also an example of how feminism isn't about equality, it's about a matriarchy. They don't give a shit about men's rights. You are also rather incorrect in regards of the Army. For the majority of our military's existence, we've allowed women in it. There was only a small time when they weren't. They were denied the capability to enroll in special forces simply because they aren't able to meet the same physical standards men can. We've since rescinded that last bit, but to my knowledge no woman has managed to make the cut as of yet.

This would be an example if it were true (not saying it isn't, but I don't have any information on that subject).

"I don't have any evidence, but I'm going to say you are wrong anyway."

Is this because of the jobs they occupy, or their treatment at their job?

Even at dangerous jobs, women are considered "precious" and are more likely to be assigned safer work than a man.

You may want to think of a reason behind this.

Probably because there are about double the amount of programs for women as there are for men? If a man becomes homeless he's told to work and find a job, a woman becomes homeless she's cared and pitied for.

Again, what is the reason? Is it because it is more accepted for a woman to find help when depressed, meaning that when a man becomes depressed he feels he cannot get help for fear of appearing womanly? (Again, woman seen in a negative context.)

The purpose of him stating wasn't a reason, it's an example of how women live better than men in almost all facets of life.

(These are really the same point.) Probably because it is more socially acceptable for women to ask for help. See above.

Have you ever BEEN homeless? I have. For three years after my 18th birthday. I was thrown out at 2am with no prior notice or provocation. There are so many MORE programs for women it's ridiculous. There was only a single homeless shelter in the city I lived in that would even take in males, and it still had its fair share of women. The women also had less chores and similar responsibilities. Any accusations that a woman gave to a man would result in her being assumed correct. Without hard evidence to the contrary, even an accusation would result in the male being evicted from the shelter. Women don't have privilege, hunh?

Part 1 of my post. I can't type more because of word count, apparently.

Theorchero1 votes

I don't get that one. It should be fraud at the very least.

But no one cares, because she's a woman.

The owners of nightclubs and bars want pretty women to attract more people (aka the guys) into their bar. They don't get free drinks unless someone buys them drinks. (Don't even try to argue that is privilege, that is some guy trying to get laid.)

The whole "Buying women drinks" is part of the social construct that caters to women. Nice try.

96% of sex offenders are male. Sorry, but females are gonna be less threatening to children.

You act like males don't massively underreport sexual abuse. The numbers are skewed for many reasons.

Women were not originally allowed in university and were discouraged from getting an education. Doesn't it make sense to encourage it now? Native people go to university for free, but that isn't a privilege because the Europeans came over and took their land and ruined their way of life.

Yes, because things people did 100 or 200 years ago whom we had no contact with means that we are responsible for their actions, right? Justifying sexism because of sexism in the past just flips the coin on who's on top. That's all. You are part of the problem.

Video games? (And yes, I get that now Riot is creating more interesting female characters, but one mention of boob-plate from a girl...)

Anita Sarkeesean? Any other dumbass woman who claims to be an expert about video game violence towards women, despite having literally no idea what they are talking about and just cherry picking and misleading game related information to intentionally obscure how the game is played? This is probably the worst point you've made thus far.

This entire point is sexist. Why do we contribute less?

Math, maybe? More likely to be considered for early retirement, women live longer, so they have more time to take on social security and retire earlier so they contribute less. They are also more likely to stop working before they officially retire.

Filed under anatomy, not privilege.

Nice try, except that many health programs and access to special care for elderly are much more accessible to women.

That might be a point if it were true (not saying it isn't, but I don't have any information on that subject).

"I don't like your point, but it's probably wrong because I say so."

Women are stereotyped as the stay at home mom and it isn't a good thing.

Oh no, having to sit at home and watch TV and work a grand total of 2 hours a day (Cooking all meals, minor cleaning) on a typical day is soo strenuous. Sure, there's kids, but after a certain age (which gets lower) they are more easily entertained by technology. Kids use fucking tablets now.

So you think having control over one's own body is female privilege? That is a basic human right.

Except that the child you are bearing isn't just your owns. It's also the fathers, whose rights you callously disregard when you consider an abortion.

Probably because in general, they do not earn as much as men.

Which is because of decisions women make. Not because they are paid less. Does not justify the disgusting alimony cases I've seen. It's an ancient and broken system and should be abolished. Women are able to work in this day in age. Child support more than covers the basic needs of a child.

Not a privilege. They put in a lot of hard work to get equal rights. I would argue that feminism (while it means that everybody should be treated the same, it does have an emphasis on women) does not seem to be taken seriously. There have been enough "men only" spaces. If men are usually the perpetrators of violent or sexual crimes against women, does this not make sense?

Men only spaces? Are you drunk? Name one place I can go that isn't a bathroom that a woman can't. THERE ARE NONE. Feminism is considered a joke because all it does is pander to attention seeking cunts. The reason people don't like feminists isn't because they are feminists, it's because they act like total bitches and are terrible human beings. Do I really need to reference videos of feminists acting like this? And they're the "middle ground" ones too. They didn't even mention killing all men or called them pigs.

And don't even get me started on con women like Quinn or Anita.

Men blame women's behaviour on hormones, I'm not sure what you want from us.

If you act ridiculous in a social or private environment, you can get a free pass by blaming it hormones. Sure we can still blame you, but it's really frowned upon and that frowning is reinforced throughout the social spectrum. Men are told to shut up and go away during that time of the month women have, just to ignore them and not call them out on their shit.

I did not personally say that, but there are not as many as you seem to think.

Really? Not as many as we seem to think? Every presentation or speech or video about feminism I've seen made by feminists don't mention the superior female rights they have. Not a single fucking one.

You say yourself that everyone has privilege. Most of the points here are not privilege either.

"You said that you have privilege. I'm going to disagree with you but still use it as a point to say that we have equal privileges. Except women have less."

Are men not consistently represented in a positive manner? Or do you mean that the only roll a women may fill on TV is a sexy/smart/athletic/multitasking superhuman?

More like women are often betrayed as more reasonable and intelligent where men are more often betrayed as belligerent assholes.

Probably because gender discrimination against women has a long history, whereas against men, it is fairly recent. It's also a reason why men need feminism.

No, men have been discriminated against just as much as women have. Forced to do dangerous jobs, work in the fields, etc, all of the ultimate award of having the privilege of being able to ASK for a woman's hand in marriage. Which is totally unreasonable until he already has a house, job, and social reputation. You sound like you need to do some actual education on equal rights. Not read feminist propaganda.

Yes. Probably because women are not seen as a threat.

Yet if they are and a man defends himself, he's more likely to be assaulted by bystanders.

Women have less stringent standards in fields of law and military.

It is a little. But it's never the less true. Despite being at very similar fitness levels (The physical differences between men and women are only really pronounced at the very high and very low end of the spectrums, those who do religiously and those who don't work out at all.) women have less stringent physical requirements and less requirements of attire.

So can men. There are people who feel sympathy for Darren Wilson, even though he executed an unarmed Mike Brown. Also, as above, women are generally not seen as a threat.

Except how many men can have a judge rule that a percentage of their divorcee's income is now forever devoted to them? How is that fair in the slightest? Because you spent a few years with her and married her, found out she's not who you thought she was, and now she is entitled to a portion of your income and to be forever taken care of by you, for no other reason that she is a women. Not even going to touch the Mike Brown fantasy.

?

I think he's talking about small but very dedicated fan bases being criticized because they're male. IE, bronies.

?

I think he's stating that statement that toes the party line (Feminism, of course) are automatically assumed accurate.

Is it socially acceptable to tell a man to suffer in silence? Also, up until fairly recently, that was what people did.

Actually, it IS socially acceptable. Women could chat in their little groups, tea parties, girls night out, whatever form it is today. Men bitching about women are condemned and judged.

This may be a point. We are more aware that it happens to women.

It's also backed by both society and law. Men are disadvantaged in both, and they are ostracized if they complain.

That seems more like a problem with the law.

Problem with the law, or the society that made it? Women in any kind of custody, paternity, or divorce case have a very heavy bias.

Nastra, you have a couple points, but an awful lot of your argument is restating itself or is not really valid.

Says the person reinstating their points, and say that "men need feminism" when the feminist movement openly doesn't care about their rights.

Drunk Rummate1 votes

i agree with the sentiment of your post. not every point, but a lot of it.

women have an innate advantage over men in a lot of areas due to their apparent monopoly on reproduction in my opinion. statistics have shown that single women make more than single men, and men work longer hours in general than women to support the family that the women goes home early to take care of.

and then you look at ease of work. due to genetic differences you will see that a lot of male dominated work is hard. even in retail stores you will see the women up front working the cash register, while the men work in back lifting boxes and restocking. obviously most women don't have the physical prowess to perform the latter efficiently, but why should men be forced into the position that's regrettably worse simply because of their gender? its fine on the surface because logically it makes sense, but then you look at wages and the women are being paid the same for the easier task, which doesn't make any logical sense.

people should be paid for what they bring constructively to society. women often prove they have a lot to offer. they earn those high wages. but do single women deserve to make more than a single man for similar, and sometimes easier tasks? because statistically they do make more.

Theorchero1 votes

I fucking hate these forums. I can't even edit my message because it breaks the post button.

More from [ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

Open Letter to Parents of League of Legends Players
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous860 comments
2,611
votes
Rewards for positive play
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous19,712 comments
1,337
votes
I don't like Boards
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous324 comments
809
votes
STOP ALLOWING LEVEL 1 ACCOUNTS TO SEND FRIEND REQUESTS!!!
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous291 comments
679
votes
Wanting to do something special for an awesome friend. Riot, please help? <3
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous220 comments
614
votes
People that are telling others to kill themselves has to stop! Please help me get this noticed!
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous605 comments
600
votes

More by Theorchero

Oh look, another champion is released with a fuck ton of knockups. Tenacity is pretty much useless.
Gameplay168 comments
216
votes
OOoh a twist of chance! Totally unexpected! A rare experience!
Gameplay148 comments
193
votes
I figured out how to fix towers being so shit
Gameplay48 comments
179
votes
ROFL. GD "wardens" forcing us to move from our old, hidden boards so we can go onto the front page..
General Discussion86 comments
176
votes
I really like the client. BUT LET ME HIDE THE DAMN MOBILE USERS.
Gameplay21 comments
170
votes
Can we actually make ADCs have a BAD early game?
Gameplay262 comments
164
votes